Yes. I was trying to avoid the digital vs analog aspect and merely tease the young grasshopper with how photo discussion forums &c existed back in the mid to late 1980's.

As for the "vintage cameras" origin of this thread, I had hoped that digital imaging hadn't entered into the discussion because cameras such as even an F4 or Rebel 2000 are sufficiently sophisticated to use in comparison to a Barnack Leica.

"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest

Likely it doesn't. But, for me at least, it's not entirely about making a "better" image - it's about enjoying the process and having fun. It's a hobby, and the manner in which it's pursued doesn't need to be justified to shareholders or anyone, it just needs to please me.

"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest

for some people i guess it does, because it makes THEM feel better but to others
they are the same pix taken with a iPhone

Click to expand...

I have an old hammer and a new hammer. They both pound nails. Using your grandfather's camera or an equivalent model off eBay makes no difference. If you have both, make sure you label them so you don't get confused. You'd hate to have a false warm and fuzzy moment.

I asked for clarification. I didn't shout at you. You seem to have several thoughts trying to get out at the same time. Perhaps I can parse this out.

You write that thinking and perception is obviously 'closer to digital' than is film. Perception (I am assuming physical perception, since you are invoking dimensionality) by humans (and all life) is analogue. Here I am talking about our five senses and there is nothing digital about it. Even the synaptic transmission of these sensations are analogue. .

...
But you're correct, code is binary and can be considered digital....

Click to expand...

The dits and dahs are merely an encoded intelligence (the definition of a signal) imposed on top of an analog carrier. All radio transmission is electromagnetic wave propagation. But I know you know all this.

"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest

The dits and dahs are merely an encoded intelligence (the definition of a signal) imposed on top of an analog carrier. All radio transmission is electromagnetic wave propagation. But I know you know all this.

Click to expand...

The mode of code transmission is continuous wave, that means the transmitter is turned on and off to make dots and dashes. There is no carrier, it's truly binary.

Yes, this is true. Many of us here, though, also get wrapped up in the process and the enjoyment of that process and that's where issues such as the subject of this thread arise.

Click to expand...

The issue for me is photography is overwhelmingly dominated by camera talk. Whether that be the latest Nikon D850 vs Sony a7III, or Nikon F2 vs Canon F-1, or Rolleiflex vs Hasselblad, it's the same conversation. While the subject is interesting, and some cameras are nicer to use than others, one camera, type for type, format for format, is almost indiscernible from another in their output. As an Ethics and Philosophy board you might imagine it to be relatively free of camera churn, but it's another place to sound off about preferences.

I've just spent the evening in the darkroom with some 35mm negatives from 2011, and without looking at the sheets I have no idea what camera they were taken on. A fancy SLR, a rangefinder or a point and shoot, it's almost impossible to tell. These conversations do not reflect that reality.

One form of fsk used international code, no spaces.
The information content is binary, the spaces serve to make it intelligible in the case of cw transmissions.

Click to expand...

You are quibbling about details and pontificating to avoid the the fact that you were wrong generally and specifically. And yes there are always variations and in this case I know more about them then you. Jus' sayin'

Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!​

You are quibbling about details and pontificating to avoid the the fact that you were wrong generally and specifically. And yes there are always variations and in this case I know more about them then you. Jus' sayin'

No "old school", eh? Young grasshopper, let me tell you about USENET, uucp protocols, and newsgroups like rec.photo.misc ...

Click to expand...

I am aware of these. They are only different protocols used for the same purpose, on fundamentally the same digital technology. My point was that there has been no fundamental change in how one computer connects to another halfway around the world, in the same way there has been a fundamental shift in how we create images.

The only point being that there is no irony in preferring film over digital, yet still using a computer to browse the internet and post on this forum, as some have attempted to smugly point out.

Let's go back to the original purpose of this thread which was to criticize my hypothesis of reductionism and minimalism.

Question: Does my hypothesis really hold water when taken to the extreme (i.e., basically using a box camera and making your own film) ? Or was it never meant to be taken to the extreme? I don't know the answer to this, I'm still thinking about it myself. The whole thing was just a shower thought I had.

This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.